Gina Rinehart instigated a “special project” to extend her personal shareholding in Hancock household property to the detriment of her youngsters, the WA Supreme Court heard.
The tangled internet of the Hancock household dynasty continues to unravel itself in court docket this week, as attorneys for Mrs Rinehart’s eldest youngsters unpack strikes they are saying elevated her share in household property from 51 per cent to 76 per cent.
That enhance was in opposition to Lang Hancock’s needs, who left Mrs Rinehart’s 4 youngsters greater than $61 million in mining property, together with Hope Downs, when he died, the court docket heard.
At the centre of the claims delivered by Christopher Whithers SC, lawyer for John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart, was a confidential 1994 memo which reveals Mrs Rinehart discussing intentionally deflating the worth of Hancock Prospecting shares held within the Hancock Family Memorial Fund (HFMF).
It was one step in a sequence of strikes Mr Whithers stated Mrs Rinehart “manufactured”, that finally led the belief Mr Hancock had established to turn out to be a shell of itself.
While Mrs Rinehart’s attorneys claimed final week she moved the property to save lots of Hancock Prospecting by undoing “errors” Lang Hancock had made earlier than his loss of life, Mr Whithers claimed the strikes enriched Mrs Hancock’s companies as a substitute.
The court docket was advised Mrs Rinehart made a sequence of transactions that included coming into deeds that noticed the belief tackle the money owed Hancock Resources owed to Hancock Prospecting (HPPL), and transferring the belief’s mining tenements to HPPL.
Mr Whithers advised the court docket this was successfully “a death warrant” for Hancock Resources.
“Hancock Resources (Limited) was a company that was in full-blown development, but in 1992 it became a company effectively frozen in time with no mining assets, no money for exploration and no prospects,” Mr Whithers stated.
While final week Mrs Rinehart’s attorneys argued her father breached his fiduciary duties to the household companies, the court docket heard Mrs Rinehart’s actions confirmed she had additionally breached her personal.
“It’s hard to imagine a more egregious breach of duties,” Mr Whithers stated of the memo which he added Mrs Rinehart didn’t want to see the sunshine of day.
“Gina is embarking upon this special project despite her fiduciary duties to her children to preserve the assets of (the trust).”
The Hancock household dramas have dominated the headlines, however the case has really been introduced by Wright Prospecting – the corporate based by Mr Hancock’s former accomplice Peter Wright – who’re claiming huge rights to royalties for components of the Hope Downs mines and possession of different components.
The case continues.
Source: www.perthnow.com.au
